981 Cayman 2.7 PDK
Discussion
I think GT4 (aka MrDemon) is autistic or, at the very least, somewhere on the spectrum.
I am not being unpleasant and do not mean any offence. He genuinely does not think his posts are offensive, patronising or belittling, so he feels affronted when people respond in kind. It's best to either ignore his posts or try to disregard the tone and style (because he means nothing by it) and focus on what little objective content there is.
His posts on this thread read, in summary, as follow:- the 2.7 is slow; anyone buying it does so only for the badge; I drive the best cars and use the best geo because, in short, I drive flat out.
I am not being unpleasant and do not mean any offence. He genuinely does not think his posts are offensive, patronising or belittling, so he feels affronted when people respond in kind. It's best to either ignore his posts or try to disregard the tone and style (because he means nothing by it) and focus on what little objective content there is.
His posts on this thread read, in summary, as follow:- the 2.7 is slow; anyone buying it does so only for the badge; I drive the best cars and use the best geo because, in short, I drive flat out.
ORD said:
The 2.7 is a gorgeous engine. The car isn't fast by any modern sports/performance car standards. But that really isn't the point.
It is still too fast to be driven properly hard in public roads, so a taste for a faster car is just that. No reasons why the slower car cannot be as much fun!
Agreed and this is why my wife has ordered one which is expected in September. It is still too fast to be driven properly hard in public roads, so a taste for a faster car is just that. No reasons why the slower car cannot be as much fun!
For the life of me I can't understand why when someone says they like or enjoyed a particular car the "knowledgeable experts" feel the need to then quote lots of irrelevant drivel on why they shouldn't like it at all.
Mja300 said:
This is my 2.7. Picked it up at the end of June and so far it's exceeded all my expectations.
I came from a 987.1 Cayman S. The PDK suits my driving for a greater percentage of the time. It just does everything so well.
ORD said:
I think GT4 (aka MrDemon) is autistic or, at the very least, somewhere on the spectrum.
I am not being unpleasant and do not mean any offence. He genuinely does not think his posts are offensive, patronising or belittling, so he feels affronted when people respond in kind. It's best to either ignore his posts or try to disregard the tone and style (because he means nothing by it) and focus on what little objective content there is.
His posts on this thread read, in summary, as follow:- the 2.7 is slow; anyone buying it does so only for the badge; I drive the best cars and use the best geo because, in short, I drive flat out.
All the above is spot on.I am not being unpleasant and do not mean any offence. He genuinely does not think his posts are offensive, patronising or belittling, so he feels affronted when people respond in kind. It's best to either ignore his posts or try to disregard the tone and style (because he means nothing by it) and focus on what little objective content there is.
His posts on this thread read, in summary, as follow:- the 2.7 is slow; anyone buying it does so only for the badge; I drive the best cars and use the best geo because, in short, I drive flat out.
I have just spent several days using a 63-plate 2.7 PDK model and my basic thoughts are these:-
Lovely car, beautifully put together and great looking and sounding. It has a terrific gearbox but the gears ARE too tall for the nature of the engine. Honda geared their S2000 very low in the first 3 gears because of the lack of torque and Porsche should have done the same. Whether it's for emissions/noise statistics i don't know, but they have geared the cammy 2.7 too tall for absolute certain. Is the older 2.9 any better in this respect, i e low down power?
Overall a fantastic buy for £40,000. My neighbour's A45AMG cost more than that and it's not in the same league as the 2.7 other than acceleration statistics. Sounds crap, rides crap, horrible turbo lag and looks crap.
I wonder if the cheapest way to lower the gearing would be a change to 18s from the stock 19s? But keep the tyre profile the same? After all, outright top speed is irrelevant to 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time.
Lovely car, beautifully put together and great looking and sounding. It has a terrific gearbox but the gears ARE too tall for the nature of the engine. Honda geared their S2000 very low in the first 3 gears because of the lack of torque and Porsche should have done the same. Whether it's for emissions/noise statistics i don't know, but they have geared the cammy 2.7 too tall for absolute certain. Is the older 2.9 any better in this respect, i e low down power?
Overall a fantastic buy for £40,000. My neighbour's A45AMG cost more than that and it's not in the same league as the 2.7 other than acceleration statistics. Sounds crap, rides crap, horrible turbo lag and looks crap.
I wonder if the cheapest way to lower the gearing would be a change to 18s from the stock 19s? But keep the tyre profile the same? After all, outright top speed is irrelevant to 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time.
CorvetteConvert said:
I have just spent several days using a 63-plate 2.7 PDK model and my basic thoughts are these:-
Lovely car, beautifully put together and great looking and sounding. It has a terrific gearbox but the gears ARE too tall for the nature of the engine. Honda geared their S2000 very low in the first 3 gears because of the lack of torque and Porsche should have done the same. Whether it's for emissions/noise statistics i don't know, but they have geared the cammy 2.7 too tall for absolute certain. Is the older 2.9 any better in this respect, i e low down power?
Overall a fantastic buy for £40,000. My neighbour's A45AMG cost more than that and it's not in the same league as the 2.7 other than acceleration statistics. Sounds crap, rides crap, horrible turbo lag and looks crap.
I wonder if the cheapest way to lower the gearing would be a change to 18s from the stock 19s? But keep the tyre profile the same? After all, outright top speed is irrelevant to 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time.
I suppose it would help a bit. Someone on here will give a rough percentage improvement (shortening). It's massively overtyred in any event. It would handle way better with less grip. Lovely car, beautifully put together and great looking and sounding. It has a terrific gearbox but the gears ARE too tall for the nature of the engine. Honda geared their S2000 very low in the first 3 gears because of the lack of torque and Porsche should have done the same. Whether it's for emissions/noise statistics i don't know, but they have geared the cammy 2.7 too tall for absolute certain. Is the older 2.9 any better in this respect, i e low down power?
Overall a fantastic buy for £40,000. My neighbour's A45AMG cost more than that and it's not in the same league as the 2.7 other than acceleration statistics. Sounds crap, rides crap, horrible turbo lag and looks crap.
I wonder if the cheapest way to lower the gearing would be a change to 18s from the stock 19s? But keep the tyre profile the same? After all, outright top speed is irrelevant to 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time.
Agreed re the AMG - never driven one, but they are about as attractive to me as any other turbo shopping car with a farty exhaust.
The car has 265/40 x 19 rear tyres as standard. A change to say, 255/40 x 18 would mean a 5% drop in gearing. That is a decent amount. You could keep the wheels/tyres for resale time or just sell them for a lot of money.
I have driven the A45AMG albeit only for 30 miles or so and when driving it hard it's seriously impressive/fast for 1991cc. But they really need the facelift version that is soon out. Better looking, 25 bhp more, but with lower gearing to masque the lack of low end grunt.
I have driven the A45AMG albeit only for 30 miles or so and when driving it hard it's seriously impressive/fast for 1991cc. But they really need the facelift version that is soon out. Better looking, 25 bhp more, but with lower gearing to masque the lack of low end grunt.
CorvetteConvert said:
Looking on PH and elsewhere it does appear that most people feel the 2.7 is too weak for a modern sports car and i suppose when many hot hatches have more power they may have a point. Maybe it's that, it's the comparison to humble hatchbacks which make the Porsche seem slow.
I think it will feel very slow to people used to cars with turbos. It has little torque at low revs, which most people would find very surprising.I love the engine. The idea that the car is 'too slow' is pretty silly, really. It just needs to be kept on the boil. It is slightly harder to overtake than in the 3.4, but the performance is more than adequate in light of our low speed limits. It's plenty fast if you can drive properly, to be blunt about it.
CorvetteConvert said:
Looking on PH and elsewhere it does appear that most people feel the 2.7 is too weak for a modern sports car and i suppose when many hot hatches have more power they may have a point. Maybe it's that, it's the comparison to humble hatchbacks which make the Porsche seem slow.
What many forget is that when the 1st hot hatches came out the entry level Porsche was slower. Compare acceleration of a 924 to that of a Golf GTi Mk1. bcr5784 said:
While that's perfectly true, if the car is used as a DD, some (including me) would prefer not to have to do it ALL the time.
It's not an easy car to drive in traffic, that's for sure. I think the 3.4 is more appropriate as a DD, but the 2.7 may be the better engine for a weekend car.ORD said:
It's not an easy car to drive in traffic, that's for sure. I think the 3.4 is more appropriate as a DD, but the 2.7 may be the better engine for a weekend car.
Wouldn't argue - but I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if the gearing was more sensible. I've certainly ridden and owned (two stroke) bikes with far far more peaky power delivery and although getting off the mark WAS a big issue, once on the move it wasn't - because the gearing made more sense. Emissions, on the other hand.... ORD said:
The 2.7 is a gorgeous engine. The car isn't fast by any modern sports/performance car standards. But that really isn't the point.
It is still too fast to be driven properly hard in public roads, so a taste for a faster car is just that. No reasons why the slower car cannot be as much fun!
Lets be honest, in the rights hands the 2.7 or street or track could be driven quicker than a 3.4 in most peoples hands. So its just about ego, knowing you have the best engine defined by power. If the 2.7 is right for you, I agree there is nothing to be little. Its like PDK vs Manual. Its a choice. It is still too fast to be driven properly hard in public roads, so a taste for a faster car is just that. No reasons why the slower car cannot be as much fun!
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff